I can TOTALLY get behind such a plan! Of course, just because it works great in Sid Meier’s Civilization doesn’t mean it necessarily will in life, but as you pointed out, it did seem to have a good effect in Iraq (when combined with the surge).

= = = = =

# 84 LibertyLover, I know the U.S. has a LOT of bases around the world, but I don’t believe your list is 100% accurate — North Korea? Burma (now known as Myan Mar)? Really?

= = = = =

Anyway, I don’t know what else President Obama could have done.

So which is it? The 9/11 attack against the US came from Saudi Arabia or Saudi Arabia supported the US stationing troops in its country. They’re mutually exclusive.

Again, in case you missed it, Saudi Arabia as a country did not attack the US. But I’m sure there are plenty of reasons why individuals or groups would dearly like to do so. They should be appeased?

So I take it your idea of “occupying” is being officially invited and stationed to help defend against the powerfully militaristic Iraq after it invaded KSA’s historic ally Kuwait. And then leaving when asked. Saudi Arabia was fearful they could be next. KSA also has large disputed territory with Iraq.

RBG

The point being made is you said countries with US occupying forces don’t tend to attack us. Saudi Arabia was occupied, and that occupation wasd a stated reason by the conspirators of 9/11.

Israel can MORE than take care of itself. There is no need for us to be their protector and savior.

RBG

[SAUDI ARABIA FUNDED - HINT - ED.]

Saying “Saudi Arabia funded” is a little like saying the IRA was United States funded. You mean to say there are people within Saudi Arabia who have the means and resources to fund such terrorists. Ditto funding by rich Islamic radicals elsewhere.

It would be ludicrous to suggest the Kingdom of Saudi Aabia – as run by King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud (note the “Saud” part) – would fund the same people who would dearly love to assassinate the king and replace him with a purely religious leadership.

(In past the Saudi king has stripped Bin Laden of his citizenship and banished him. Doesn’t sound much like support, does it?)

If you know anything about Saudi Arabia, you know about the historic struggle and compromises between the religious conservatives and the ruling kings. You know that occasionally the Saudi Kings get offed by the religious radicals. The country even supports two entirely separate armies as a defence against potential coups.

You also know that it is the king and like-thinkers who have been at the forefront of dragging the country into the 20th & 21st centuries but always at the cost of religious appeasements. But funding and building the means for revolution obviously would not be one of them.

So saying Al Qaeda is Saudi Arabia funded makes as much sense as saying the US would fund a group of Lee Harvey Oswalds.

RBG

By that do you mean pull out of the Middle-East and let them “resolve” their differences? That is what I call kumbayah foreign policy. If we all just sit around the campfire and sing kumbayah, there won’t be any problems. It only works with reasonable countries that actually want peace. It doesn’t work with countries run by nut jobs like Iran. Iran has made it clear that their main objective is to wipe Israel off the map. In the days of flintlocks and horseback cavalry, it might have made sense to just let them go at each other until they got tired or wiped out each other’s military, however in the days of jet fighters, missiles and nuclear weapons that policy could cost the lives of many people outside of the Middle-East.

I want to remove the need for them to feel threatened by us.

#100, Thank you.

Let me quote you, Rambo…

I believe that if anybody on this board can claim the status of veteran…

You put yourself above the rest of us who served, just because you happened to be in the same shit hole were two suicide bombers struck. Perhaps you don’t understand your own writing?

Bill O’Reilly mentioned shortly after Obama got elected that depending on how good / bad Obama in his first term as President, this would determine if a third party emerges. More recently, I heard him suggest the possibility that perhaps Sarah Palin might be the one to head this up.

As for Beck, he’s been a bit livid with the Republican party and seems to see the need for a cleansing of sorts and has also mentioned about a third party as a result of things going on now.

I can’t go for Ron Paul because like all Progressives on national defense, He would wait to put out fires rather than prevent them. We’re not living 200 years in the past where we have lots of time to address threats.

In the case of Iran, sure they have every right to make nuclear weapons. But do you really want them to go through with that knowing how they’re going to use them? Do you really want to wait until they fire one off? Or do you nip it in the bud?

That being said, I like what he says when it comes to money.

92, Don’t be so naive. People who join the military know what they’re getting themselves into. I knew it when I went in. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that somehow it’s shocking military forces can be involved in combat and that there might be some people who can get killed.

The military serves two basic purposes. Kill and destroy. Politicians spin it however way they wish. Other jobs that are not combat-related are there to support the combat-related jobs. Collectively it still comes down to those two basic purposes.

Also pulling out and letting Afghanistan fend for itself may be a quick solution to what you perceive to be the problem, but you will be postponing it for a potentially long term problem for us confront later if it becomes a breeding ground for more terrorism.

Radicals in these organizations want the world to live as they do. Western culture in their eyes poison their youth due to bad influences such as movies / shows / etc. from Hollywood and other places.